According to an American scientist, the United States, Germany, France and Great Britain are the most corrupt

At the Gaidar Forum in Moscow, US professor Immanuel Wallerstein said the day before that Russia does not control oil prices and the exchange rate, linking the problem with determinism and the role of the individual in history. The BUSINESS Online correspondent also learned about the worst properties of capitalism and why mafia structures are a regularity for the current world.

AND FINALLY THERE IS THE MAFIA!

At the Gaidar Forum in Moscow in the red (symbolically!) hall Russian Academy of the national economy and civil service under the President of the Russian Federation, world-class experts discussed yesterday about Is there a future for capitalism. One of the most interesting speakers was a professor at Yale University (USA) Immanuel Wallerstein. It was he who once said that by 2050 Vladimir Lenin in Russia may well become the main national hero. But at the forum, Wallerstein was not talking about the leader of the world proletariat. To begin with, the professor resolutely refuted the rather widespread opinion that corruption is most developed in poor countries.

“Let's talk about corruption,” the professor suggested. - I will never believe that corruption was the highest in poor countries - there simply is not enough money for corruption to be high. Where is corruption worth doing? These are the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain. These are rich countries and they are corrupt. If you have to pay money, as a manufacturer, to a corrupt politician or someone else who can block your activity, it's a tax, it's a tax. It doesn't matter to the manufacturer who he pays - legally to the state or to a corrupt intermediary. All the same, these are taxes, and they are increasing.”

Wallerstein also recalled: “And finally, there is the Mafia! She says "Your money or your life!" And people choose money. And all this becomes, so to speak, a normal way of income, it lasts for several generations. The mafiosi are eliminated, but a new mafia appears to replace the previous one. And now the infrastructure of the world system is so massive that there are more opportunities for the emergence of mafia structures. All these processes have led to an increase in the cost of production. But it does not grow in a simple way - costs grow like this: two steps up, one step down.

CAPITALISM IS BAD, BUT IT CAN BE WORSE

“Let's look at the period from 1970 to 1984,” the professor suggested. - You can measure the change in costs and see that they are very significant. But the capitalists, their upper strata, are trying to resist this - to reduce the cost of personnel, to reduce the costs associated with production, to reduce taxes ... This is true, and they succeed. If you compare the costs in 1970 with the costs in 2010, you will see that the costs in 2010 are less than in 1970. However, they are higher in 2010 than in 1945. Two steps up - one step down. Wallerstein also cited a longer period of time as an example: “If we look at what happened over 400 years, we will see the same thing: two steps up, one down. Over these 400 years, there is a certain trend that I would call a secular, age-old trend.”

The professor also commented on the graph shown: “Here is the curve along the abscissa, there are percentages, here time goes by. And you see that at first we have 80 percent - and at that moment the fluctuations begin, which manifested themselves in all dimensions. Structural crises are visible in these fluctuations. One favorable to the existing classes, but not to the capitalist system, which reproduces the worst features of capitalism: hierarchy, exploitation, and above all polarization. That is, it reproduces all three of these indicators. There are many opportunities to change this, but these may turn out to be more unacceptable systems than the capitalist system. Another branch of the system is relatively democratic... We don't know what it will look like, who will win this battle of two possibilities. Impossible to predict!

A BUTTERFLY CLAPPES ITS WINGS AND IT AFFECTS THE CLIMATE ON THE OTHER PLANET

The professor noted that such predictions are related to the concept of determinism and free will: “We usually say that these are some abstract philosophical questions. Is the world deterministic ( determinism - a philosophical doctrine of the natural causality of all phenomena of the objective world -approx. ed.), or is there free will? This is a philosophical question, a question of historical shifts. There are moments in time when things are determined, and there are moments when there is free will. What are these moments in time? In the normal operation of the system, this is determinism. It doesn't matter what the equilibrium is ( balance -approx. ed.) - the pressure of the system pushes you back to balance. Here are two examples: the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. If you trace their effects over 50 to 70 years, you will find that the enormous changes brought about by the social movements that led to this revolution have reverted over time.

The normal operation of the system is a deterministic moment. But when you move to a structural crisis, instead of large fluctuations that turn into small fluctuations, small fluctuations, on the contrary, grow into large fluctuations. And in this system, free will prevails. This means that the impact of an individual has great value, this is the so-called butterfly effect (" butterfly effect" - a term in the natural sciences, denoting the property of some chaotic systems: a slight influence on the system can have large and unpredictable consequences somewhere else and at another time -approx. ed.) . Here a butterfly flaps its wings, and this affects the climate on the other side of the planet. Because it’s just a little, but it has some kind of impact, changes the equation, and over time it all grows, grows and grows.”

THERE IS NO QUESTION: WILL RUSSIA BE CAPITALIST?

From the hall (recall - red Hall) Professor Wallerstein was asked: “What is your opinion on economic integration? We see that in every region - Asia, North America, Eurasia - there are certain phenomena. On January 1, the Eurasian Economic Union came into force. Does this economic integration provide more opportunities for global growth? How will it affect economic growth over the next few years?”

“This question is the culmination of all remarks concerning Russia and capitalism! Wallerstein exclaimed. - People ask the question: can Russia become a capitalist country? What should she do with her strategy? Today the Prime Minister made some proposals and discussed problems. From my point of view, Russia is now and has long been part of the capitalist world system. There is no question: will Russia be capitalist? You are already living in capitalism. And the question for Russia is: how is it better to get along in this capitalist system in order to maximize the well-being of citizens, in order to strengthen the country in the geopolitical aspect.

Then the professor continued: “Returning to whether it would be better for Russia if it were more liberal. The Prime Minister was just talking about this: it would be better for Russia if it were more social-democratic. This is the position of most people who talk about redistribution within the country. But Russia does not control these aspects - it all depends on the price of oil, on the exchange rate of currencies and so on. This is not subject to Russian control. It is part of a larger system, and this larger system behaves differently. And the ability of the Russian state as a state to have a strong influence on oil prices or on exchange rates, in my opinion, is very limited.

Specifically on the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, Wallerstein said: “If you look at the geopolitical aspects, the choice that Russia makes in terms of integration, I don’t like this word ... Russia should use its geopolitical opportunities: move closer to Europe, move away from Europe or break away from Europe altogether... All this is part of the uncertainties and instability of the system, all this is part of the overall chaotic situation. And again, Russia is doing what everyone else is doing - it will try to do one thing, another thing, a third thing... It is looking for better opportunities, better options. And it's not easy. I'm glad I'm not President Putin, he has a tough job. It would be difficult if someone else was the president. This work is actually very difficult. Internal disputes in Russia reflect what is happening in other countries. Maybe in a different form, since you have a different interethnic situation, you have a different degree of development of industry and education. Russia, of course, is not Brazil or Ukraine. And all the decisions that will be made in Russia will be different from those that will be made in Brazil, Ukraine or the United States. But the debate continues - how to maximize our position in this uncertain world?

Reference

Immanuel Wallerstein(Eng. Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein) - American sociologist and neo-Marxist philosopher, one of the founders of world-systems analysis, one of the leading representatives of the modern left public thought.

Born September 28, 1930 in New York (USA). Studied at Columbia University. In 1951 he received a bachelor's degree, in 1954 - a master's degree, in 1959 - a doctor of philosophy. From 1959 to 1971 he taught in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. From 1971 to 1976 - Professor of Sociology at McGill University (Montreal, Canada). From 1976 to 1999 - Honorary Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University (New York, USA). Since 2000, he has been a leading researcher at Yale University. From 1994 to 1998 he served as chairman of the International Sociological Association.

Winner of the Kondratiev Gold Medal in 2004 "for outstanding contribution to the development of social sciences". Wallerstein began his academic career at Columbia University, studying sociology and African studies. Since the 1960s, he has been working on issues of the general theory of socio-economic development. Author of the world-system theory, created under the influence of the French historian Fernand Braudel. In an essay titled "Does India Exist?" Wallerstein develops the theory of states.

According to Wallerstein, “Lenin for Russia will inevitably become the central figure of the 20th century” and “with the passage of time in Russia, the political rehabilitation of Lenin is very likely. Somewhere by 2050, he may well become the main national hero.

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein(Eng. Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein; born September 28, 1930, New York, USA) is an American sociologist, political scientist and neo-Marxist philosopher, one of the founders of world-systems analysis, one of the leading representatives of modern leftist social thought.

Biography

Born in a family of emigrants from Austria-Hungary in 1930 in New York.

He studied at Columbia University, studying sociology and African studies (1951, bachelor; 1954, master; 1959, doctor). In 1951-1953 he served in the army.

From 1959 to 1971 he taught at the Department of Sociology at Columbia University, was the youngest professor. In the early 1960s, he was an adviser to the Kennedy administration, and there were even rumors that he would be appointed US Secretary of State. From 1971 to 1976 - professor of sociology at McGill University (Montreal, Canada). From 1976 to 1999 - Honorary Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University (New York, USA). Since 2000, he has been a leading researcher at Yale University.

From 1994 to 1998 he served as chairman of the International Sociological Association.

In 1964 he married Beatrice Friedman and has a daughter.

Scientific interests, ideas

Since the 1960s, he has been working on issues of the general theory of socio-economic development. The author of the world-system theory, created under the influence of the French historian Fernand Braudel.

In an essay titled "Does India Exist?" Wallerstein shows that India as a sovereign state was formed within the modern capitalist world-system as part of it, and its history was constructed by politicians, scientists and the general public in the present and recent past as a way of legitimizing the status quo:

Let's imagine for a moment what would happen if, during the period 1750-1850, the British colonized mainly the territory of the old Mughal Empire, calling it Hindustan, and the French simultaneously occupied the southern (mostly Dravidian) regions of the present Republic of India, giving them the name Dravidia. Would we then consider today that Madras was the original "historical" part of India? Would we use the word India at all? I think not. Instead, scholars from all over the world would probably scribble chubby volumes proving that since time immemorial Hindustan and Dravidia have been two fundamentally different cultures, peoples, civilizations, nations, or otherwise differed in some other way.

Wallerstein I. Does India really exist?

In his opinion, “Lenin for Russia will inevitably turn out to be the central figure of the 20th century”: “In the course of time, political rehabilitation of Lenin is very likely in Russia. Somewhere by 2050, he may well become the main national hero.

Participation in the editorial offices of journals

Member of the editorial board of the journals Social Evolution and History, Asian Perspective, Africa Today, etc.

Awards

• 2004 - Kondratiev gold medal "for outstanding contribution to the development of social sciences".

Bibliography

• Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in modern world/Translated from English. P. M. Kudyukina under the general editorship. B.Yu. Kagarlitsky. - St. Petersburg: University book, 2001. - 416 p. - ISBN 5-94483-042-5.
• Wallerstein I. After liberalism / Ed. B. Yu. Kagarlitsky. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2003. - 256 p. - 3,000 copies. - ISBN 5-354-00509-4. (English After Liberalism)
• Wallerstein I., Balibar E. Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities / General ed. D. Skopin, B. Kagarlitsky. - M.: Logos-Altera, Esce Homo, 2003. - 272 p. (Eng. Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities)
• Wallerstein I. The End of the Familiar World: Sociology of the 21st Century. - M.: Logos, 2004. - 368 p. - ISBN 5-94010-255-7. (English The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century)
• Wallerstein I. World-system analysis: Introduction / translation. N. Tyukina. M.: Publishing house "Territory of the future", 2006. - 248 p.
• Wallerstein I. Historical capitalism. capitalist civilization. - M.: Association of scientific publications KMK, 2008. - 176 p.
• Wallerstein I. World-system Modern. T. I. Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the 16th century. - M.: Dmitry Pozharsky University, 2015. - 552 p. - ISBN 978-5-91244-096-0 (Eng. The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, 1974)
• Wallerstein I. World-system Modern. T. II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. - M.: Dmitry Pozharsky University, 2016. - 528 p. - ISBN 978-5-91244-097-7 (English The Modern World-System, vol. II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750, 1980)
• Wallerstein I. World-system Modern. T. III. Moscow: Dmitry Pozharsky University Press, 2016.
• Wallerstein I. World-system Modern. T. IV. Moscow: Dmitry Pozharsky University Press, 2016.
• Wallerstein I. Social change forever? Nothing ever changes?// sociological research. - 1997. - No. 1. - S. 8-21.
• Wallerstein I. World-system analysis//Time of the world. Almanac contemporary research on theoretical history, macrosociology, geopolitics, analysis of world systems and civilizations / Ed. N. S. Rozova. Novosibirsk, 1998. - Issue 1. - S. 105-123.
• Wallerstein I. Inventions of the realities of Time-Space: towards understanding our historical systems // Time of the World. Almanac of Modern Research on Theoretical History, Macrosociology, Geopolitics, Analysis of World Systems and Civilizations / Ed. N. S. Rozova. - Novosibirsk, 2001. - Issue 2.
• Wallerstein I. World-system analysis
• Wallerstein I. Intellectuals in the Age of Transition
• Wallerstein I. Shock and awe? // Logos. - 2003. - No. 1.
• Wallerstein I. The end of the beginning // Logos. - 2003. - No. 1.
• Wallerstein I. Eagle went to an emergency landing // Logos. - 2003. - No. 2.
• Wallerstein I. Periphery // Economic Theory / Ed. J. Itwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman. - M.: INFRA-M, 2004. - S.671-679.
• Wallerstein I. Neither patriotism nor cosmopolitanism (PDF) // Logos. - 2006 - No. 2.
• Wallerstein I. New uprisings against the system. //<БЕЗ ТЕМЫ>. - 2007. - № 4
• Wallerstein I. Marx and underdevelopment // Sociology: theory, methods, marketing. - 2008. - No. 1.
• Wallerstein I. Modernization: peace be upon it // Sociology: theory, methods, marketing. - 2008. - No. 2.
• Wallerstein I. European universalism: the rhetoric of power (PDF) // Forecasts. - 2008. - No. 2 (14).
• Wallerstein I. Marx and history: fruitful and unproductive reading (from the book by E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein "Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities")
• Wallerstein I. Capitalism will exhaust its potential in the near future
• Wallerstein I. Does India really exist? // Logos. - 2006, - No. 5. - S. 3-8.
• Wallerstein I. Capitalism: an adversary of the market? // Logos. - 2006. - No. 5. - P.9-13.
• Wallerstein I. The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System, vol. III: The Second Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840's. San Diego: Academic Press, 1989.
• Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System, vol. IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 2011.

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein. World-system analysis

1. Biography of I. Wallerstein and briefly about the main works of the writer

Born September 28, 1930 in New York, USA. Wallerstein's parents belonged to a wave of intellectual refugees from the disintegrated Austria-Hungary. After graduation high school the young man entered Columbia University, where he studied sociology, graduated with honors. Wallerstein belonged to the intellectual and political elite of New York from a young age, and at the height of the glory of the cosmopolitan metropolis, in the post-war 1950s and 1960s. Columbia University then enjoyed a triple advantage over the much more traditional Harvard and Princeton. In 1951, Wallerstein received a bachelor's degree, a little later - a master's degree, and in 1959 he received a Ph.D.

From 1959 to 1971 he was a lecturer at Columbia University. There he began his scientific career, studying sociology and African studies. Since the 1960s, he has been working on issues of the general theory of socio-economic development. From 1971 to 1976, Immanuel Wallerstein held a professorship at McGill University (Montreal, Canada). Wallerstein's career progressed rapidly, and between 1976 and 1999. From 1976 to 1999 - Honorary Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University (New York, USA). Since 2000, he has been a senior researcher at Yale University. From 1994 to 1998 he served as chairman of the International Sociological Association.

Wallerstein is distinguished by his great capacity for work and scientific productivity, he became the author of more than twenty books and over three hundred articles. His research on the origin and evolution of the capitalist world-economy, global prospects and development trends has gained worldwide fame. modern societies. The concept of world-system analysis developed by I. Wallerstein, which focuses on the “ecumenical”, global vision of the process of world-historical changes, has become an influential trend in modern social and political theory in the last two decades. Laying the main blame for the backwardness of the "Third World" on the developed countries of the West, Wallerstein continues the traditions of the Marxist theory of imperialism. His approach to explaining history has gained immense popularity among radical left economists in developed and developing countries. They are particularly impressed by the pronounced anti-Americanism of Wallerstein's ideas.

Main labor I. Wallerstein - the multi-volume Modern world-system: in the first volume (1974) the genesis of the European world-economy in the 16th century is considered, in the second (1980) - its development during the period of mercantilism, in the third volume (1989) he brought its history to 1840s. In other writings, Wallerstein analyzes the evolution of the capitalist world-economy in the 19th and 20th centuries. and even makes predictions for the 21st century.

The main concept of the concept developed by Wallerstein is the world-economy - a system of international relations based on trade. In addition to world-economy, different countries can unite into world-empires, based not on economic, but on political unity. History is viewed by him as the development of various regional world-systems (world-economy and world-empires), which competed with each other for a long time, until the European (capitalist) world-economy became absolutely dominant. Thus, Wallerstein challenges the traditional formational and civilizational approaches to history, proposing a new, third paradigm of social development.

World-system analysis. The birth of world-system analysis

The main work of I. Wallerstein is the multi-volume "Modern World-System": in the first volume (1974) the genesis of the European world-economy in the 16th century is considered, in the second (1980) - its development during the period of mercantilism, in the third volume (1989) he brought its history to the 1840s. In other writings, Wallerstein analyzes the evolution of the capitalist world-economy in the 19th and 20th centuries. and even makes predictions for the 21st century.

The concept of "world economy" (l "economie-monde) was introduced by Braudel, so it is advisable to start the presentation of the world-system approach from his views. Speaking of the world economy, the historian did not mean the world economy as a whole. This type of economy (world market) arose recently, and he does not consider it. In the word "world" Braudel put the concept of regional self-sufficiency, economic independence from other regions. He wrote: "The world economy ... affects only a part of the Universe, an economically independent piece of the planet, capable of being basically self-sufficient, one that connections and exchanges give a certain organic unity.

The world economy exists across political, cultural and religious boundaries (considered the boundaries of "local civilizations"). Such a “world” is united by its economy: in any “worlds”, even in the empires of the East, the state can be stronger than society, “but not stronger than the economy”. Subsequently, when Wallerstein introduced the term "peace empire", Braudel did not accept this innovation.

World economies have existed since ancient times: Phoenicia, Carthage, Rome, India, China, the world of Islam - all these are world economies, although they are different. Fixing the fact of their differences, Braudel does not offer a classification of world economies, but at the same time he notes a number of common features for them. First of all, the world economy is spatially limited, its boundaries change rarely and slowly. This is due to the fact that such a border is a zone that is unprofitable to cross from either side. Therefore, the world economies were generally stable until the end of the 15th century, when "Europe moved its borders" and began to conquer the rest of the world.

In addition, each world economy has its own center. Such a center is the "capitalist" city that dominates the region. The center of the world economy can move. This may be the result of a political decision (Beijing becomes the capital of China instead of Nanjing in 1421) or economic reasons (relocation of the center of Europe), but always has important consequences for the entire world economy. The center - "supercity" economically subjugates other cities.

There may be two centers (Rome and Alexandria, Venice and Genoa). This situation develops during the struggle for leadership between cities. The success of one of the centers leads to the decline of the other. The centers of the European (wider - Western) world economy were: Venice (1380s - about 1500), Genoa (1550/1560-1590/1610), Amsterdam (about 1610-1780/1815), London (about 1815-1929 years), New York (since 1929).

The center of the world economy is always cosmopolitan: trade links together regions with different cultures, and all paths lead to the capital of the world economy, which becomes the "Noah's Ark". This provision requires the admission of political and religious freedoms not possible in other zones. At the same time, the capital is characterized by sharp social stratification and the high cost of living.

Finally, the space of the world economy is divided into several interdependent zones. The most important feature of the world economy is the hierarchy of these zones. “Any world-economy,” writes Braudel, “is a folding, a combination of zones connected together, but on different levels. At least three areas, three categories are outlined in space: a narrow center, secondary, rather developed areas, and, finally, huge outer outskirts ... The center, so to speak, the “heart”, combines all the most advanced and most diverse ... The next link has only a part of these advantages, although it enjoys some of their share: this is the zone of “brilliant second”. The vast periphery with its sparse population is characterized by archaism, backwardness, and easy accessibility for exploitation by others. It should be noted that Braudel hesitated in determining what should be considered the center - only the dominant city or the entire sociohistorical organism in which this city is located.

Another interesting element: "isolates" that are within the world economy, but not associated with it (peasant communities with traditional way life, "being outside the time of the world"). Beyond the world-economy (at least in Europe) there are peculiar outgrowths, "antennas", "of which the Levantine trade was undoubtedly the best example." With the help of this image, Braudel shows the spread of the influence of a stronger world economy to the weaker ones, which leads to the gradual subordination of the latter.

The cultural division of mankind coincides with the economic one only in part: within the same world economy, there can be different world cultures, which is explained by the relative autonomy of cultural worlds (Braudel is not a supporter of economic determinism). Within the world economy, the cultural capital and the economic center can exist separately (Florence under the hegemony of Venice, Paris under the hegemony of London in Europe). Nevertheless, science and technology develop in the capital of the world economy.

The history of the world economy is subject to time cycles. The economy has its own cycles, demography has its own, art schools, crime, fashion, etc. Their addition creates the "time of the world." The problem of cyclicity and continuity is only outlined by Braudel. It will be developed in more detail by Wallerstein. Those are in in general terms theoretical views of Braudel. His undoubted achievement is the study of horizontal links within world economies and an equally undoubted problem is the relationship between world economies and individual societies. Braudel does not notice this problem and does not theoretically develop it. The concept of society as a special socio-historical organism is present in him, as in many other historians, only implicitly. This is due to the lack of sufficient clarity in Braudel's constructions. He writes about the Turkish or Japanese world-economy (coinciding with the boundaries of socio-historical organisms), along with this - about three giant world-economy (Islamic, Indian and Chinese), coinciding with the boundaries of local civilizations, and, finally, about the super-world-economy of all Asia.

Ignoring the level of a separate, specific society is also characteristic of other representatives of the world-system approach, which inevitably entails difficulties and ambiguities.

2. Development of the world-system approach by I. Wallerstein

The approach discussed above has further development and concretization in the works of Wallerstein. Starting his academic career as an African sociologist, Wallerstein became involved in the general theory of social and economic development in the 1960s. The world-system theory developed by him synthesizes sociological, historical and economic approaches to social evolution. It was Wallerstein who introduced the concept of world-system analysis (MSA).

Wallerstein opposes the over-specialization of various scientific disciplines and considers the boundaries between these disciplines to be largely artificial and far-fetched. According to Wallerstein, anthropology, economics, political science and sociology should be replaced by a unified social science. All social research is necessarily historical. He considers the "historical system" as the basic unit of analysis.

Wallerstein considers "social systems", which are subdivided into mini-systems and world-systems, to be a true social reality. In turn, world systems are divided into world empires and world economies. The three main types of social systems are based on three different "modes" of production (mode of production).

Mini-systems are relatively small, highly autonomous units with a clear internal division of labor and a common culture. They are not part of any higher level systems and do not pay regular tribute. The mini-systems are based on a production method that Wallerstein calls reciprocal-lineage. Being the only ones in the era of hunting and gathering, mini-systems subsequently coexisted with world-systems, then were supplanted by them and by now, have almost disappeared. Wallerstein's mini-systems are of no interest. All his attention is given to the world-systems.

"A world-system is a social system that has boundaries, structure, legitimation rules, and coherence." It is an organism whose life is determined by conflicting forces; an organism that has a life-span beyond which its characteristics change in one respect and do not change in another. The criterion of the world-system is the self-contained nature of its existence. The world-system is not a "world-system", but a "system" that is a "world". Self-sufficiency is a theoretical absolute (like a vacuum) that does not exist in reality, but makes the phenomena of reality measurable.

The first in time in antiquity arise political world-systems - "world-empires". With this term, Wallerstein refers not only to the "worlds" themselves (China, Ancient Rome etc.), but also the "mode of production", which is their basis. "The key-note of this mode of production is the political unity of the economy, which exists not only in the presence of relatively high administrative centralization (the 'imperial' form), but also in its absence (the 'feudal' form)". Practically in the first case, Wallerstein has in mind the political (Asian) mode of production, in the second - the feudal one. But in theoretical terms, Wallerstein does not recognize any "modes of production" other than those discovered by him.

Wallerstein does not consider world empires by themselves either (followers will take care of them). The only thing that attracts his attention is the ability of the world empire to turn into qualitatively different world systems - world economies.

Of course, the main concept of the concept developed by Wallerstein is the world-economy - a system of international relations based on trade. In addition to world-economy, different countries can unite into world-empires, based not on economic, but on political unity. History is viewed by him as the development of various regional world-systems (world-economy and world-empires), which competed with each other for a long time, until the European (capitalist) world-economy became absolutely dominant. Thus, Wallerstein challenges the traditional formational and civilizational approaches to history, proposing a new, third paradigm of social development.

Traditionally, capitalism has been considered social system initially originated in some of the most developed countries, and only then did the capitalist world economy begin to take shape. According to Wallerstein's concept, on the contrary, capitalism initially developed as an integral system of world relations, the individual elements of which were national economies.

Capitalism was born, according to Wallerstein, in the 16th century, when, due to an accidental combination of circumstances in Western Europe world-empires gave way to a world-economy based on trade. The capitalist world-economy gave rise to the colonial expansion of the Western European countries, by the 19th century. it overwhelmed all other world-economy and world-empires, remaining the only modern world-system.

According to Wallerstein's theory, all countries of the capitalist world-economy live in the same rhythm, dictated by the "long waves" of Kondratiev.

The capitalist world-economy is characterized by an "axial division of labor" - a division into a core (center) and a periphery. The countries of European civilization, which form the core of the world economy, play the role of the leading force in world economic development. Non-European countries (with some exceptions) form the periphery, i.e. are economically and politically dependent. The backwardness of the periphery countries is explained, according to Wallerstein, by the purposeful policy of the core countries - they impose on subordinate countries such economic specialization that retains the leadership of developed countries. Although the developed countries promote the ideology of "free trade", Wallerstein sees capitalism as a deeply anti-market system, as the core countries monopolize their privileged position and defend it by force. However, in the 20th century The line between the core and the periphery began to partly blur due to the active attempts of previously backward countries (for example, Japan) to break into the circle of active participants in the world economy.

According to Wallerstein, modern era America is losing its status as an absolute leader: "The United States is still the strongest power in the world," he writes, "but it is a fading power."

His approach to explaining history has gained immense popularity among radical left economists in developed and developing countries. They are particularly impressed by the pronounced anti-Americanism of Wallerstein's ideas.

Although many social scientists disagree with Wallerstein, the world-systems theory had a huge impact on the growth of interest in history as a single global process and contributed to the birth of historical globalism.

Wallerstein's concept developed in contact with Braudel's ideas, and their influence was mutual. But if for Braudel the formulation of the principles of the world-economic (world-system) approach was the result of scientific research, then for Wallerstein it was their starting point. The latter sees in the world-system approach the only acceptable methodology of cognition. social phenomena.

The world economy is a system that is fundamentally different from both a mini-system and a world empire. In the world economy there are no social restrictions for the development of production, which becomes possible, according to Wallerstein, when the economy is freed from the dictates of political power (in Europe - to XVI century). Such diktat is the essence of the world empire. Its abolition is the victory of a new "mode of production" - "world economy" (here the terms "world system" and "mode of production" coincide).

World-empires in the past periodically turned into fragile world-economy, which soon perished, again transforming into world-empires. Such is the fate of the world economies of China, Persia, Ancient Rome and others. They are also out of Wallerstein's field of vision - he studies only one world system - the modern one (CMC), which is also the capitalist world economy (LME), the only one of the world economies that not only survived, but also defeated other social systems, "drawing" them into itself6. In the future, we will only talk about the KME.

The capitalist world-economy is based on an extensive division of labor (less geographically determined, more socially). Its constituent parts are the core, semi-periphery and periphery. Its population is divided into "status groups" and "classes". Let's consider these concepts in more detail. The core, in the most general definition, is the area that benefits from unequal exchange with other parts of the world economy. The core is characterized by economic growth, political freedom, the development of science and, most importantly, a strong, effectively functioning state that pursues an offensive policy in the international arena.

Wallerstein, like Braudel, theoretically completely ignores the existence of societies as socio-historical organisms. Moreover, he essentially denies the existence of societies, declaring that at a later stage social development the only realities are world-systems. But it is characteristic that when he proceeds to the study of historical reality, he practically cannot do without this concept. It is societies as sociohistorical organisms that he has in mind when he talks not about the core in general, but about core-states. As a result, his constructions acquire a character more adequate to reality.

So, the core of the world system consists of several states, i.e. actually socio-historical organisms. But they are not equal. Like Braudel, Wallerstein singles out the hegemon as an indispensable condition for the existence of the world-system. The history of the core is the history of the struggle for hegemony between several pretenders, the victory of one of them, his dominance over the world, and the subsequent decline.

Wallerstein proposes a different sequence of LME hegemons than Braudel's: the United Provinces (Holland) in 1620-1672, Great Britain in 1815-1873 and the United States of America in 1945-1967. The time of the decline of each of the hegemons was the time of the struggle of their possible successors: Great Britain and France, the USA and Germany, Western Europe and Japan, respectively. Placing the main blame for the backwardness of the Third World on the developed countries of the West, Wallerstein continues the traditions of the Marxist theory of imperialism.

The future winner entered into an alliance with the decrepit hegemon, which helped him to defeat his rival.

But no matter how significant the relations within the core are, the relation center-periphery and the contradictions that arise between these two components of the world economy are incomparably more important. If the world-system is a “world” due to its self-sufficiency, then it is a “system” due to the interaction between the center and the periphery.

“The periphery of the world economy is a geographical sector whose products are of low quality (and worse paid) goods, but this sector is included in the division of labor because there is a constant demand for its products.”

The periphery loses in non-equivalent exchange to the same extent as the center gains. On the periphery, the rule is economic and political decline, including colonial dependence and the absence of their own statehood or the weakness of the latter under neo-colonialism. The socio-economic structure of society is determined by its place in the world system. Changes in the order in the core entail changes in the periphery, which can be understood only on the basis of the history of the world-system as a whole. From the logic of the development of societies "in themselves" (as they are considered in the orthodox version of the theory of formations), these changes are not derived.

An example of systemic dependence, which has become almost textbook thanks to Braudel and Wallerstein, is serfdom in Eastern Europe and plantation slavery in America, brought to life by the emergence of capitalism in Western Europe (the core of the world system).

In addition to the core and the periphery, there is an intermediate (in terms of a set of socio-economic indicators) zone in the world system - the semi-periphery. Its composition is fluid - some countries move into the core, others go to the periphery (which is more usual - the semi-periphery is still not a "semi-core"). The role of the semi-periphery is twofold: it is both the stabilizer of the world-system and the "agent of change" in it.

The problem of the semi-periphery has become central to discussions among world-systemists, all the more so since Wallerstein himself, not being a dialectician, sees an insurmountable difficulty in the contradictory position of the semi-periphery. Without going into details, I note that among the followers of Wallerstein, there have been two polar approaches to the semi-periphery: either it is a zone that serves as the main source of progressive changes in the system (Chase-Dunn), or the embodiment of sub-imperialism, transferring the influence of the center to the periphery (Amin) . Wallerstein's own position is closer to that of Amin.

The periphery closes the world-system in space. Behind the periphery, an external arena begins - another world-system, with which this world-system has trade relations, “based mainly on the exchange of jewelry”, and not goods that are vital to this world-system. Every world-system is an external arena in relation to another world-system. In the case of the absorption of the world-system external arena, the latter becomes the periphery or semi-periphery of the victorious system.

The population of the world-system forms "status groups" and "classes". The boundaries between them are mobile. "Class" for Wallerstein is a "status group" with self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is a function of a conflict situation, i.e. “class” arises when there is a struggle to acquire or retain rights. It follows that there can be no more than two "classes": none (unstable, transitional state), one (the most common occurrence), or two (the most explosive state). As we can see, contrary to the authors who consider Wallerstein a Marxist, his "classes" have nothing to do with social production - their existence depends on the awareness of the members of the "status groups" of their interests.

The history of the KME is determined, according to Wallerstein, by the imposition of economic cycles (rise - decline) of various time lengths. Special attention he pays attention to "Kondratieff cycles" (45-60 years) and R. Cameron's "trends" (150-300 years). Kondratieff cycles have an A-phase (rise) and a B-phase (recession), and, as Wallerstein notes, both phases are necessary: ​​they are cycles of fluctuations in the average world profit, born of a constant fluctuation in supply combined with an unstable fluctuation in demand. Different cycles are superimposed on each other. By solving short-term problems, "social agents" create medium-term problems, the same can be said about the ratio of medium- and long-term problems. A systemic crisis occurs when unresolved problems of different urgency are superimposed, so history, being subject to cycles, nevertheless never repeats itself.

Wallerstein de facto recognizes the development of the world system as a unity of progressive movement and the cycle of economic cycles. But in theory, the concept of "development" in relation to society and the concept of "progress" in relation to history as a whole are rejected by him. In doing so, he contradicts himself. The stage of world economies for humanity is much more progressive than the stage of mini-systems, no matter what meaning you put into the word "progress". Each individual society also goes through a certain path, sometimes progressive, sometimes regressive, in any case, the path of regular progressive development, and Wallerstein perfectly shows this on the basis of rich factual material.

But the higher the level of generalization in Wallerstein, the weaker the conclusions. The historian has to resort to various verbal tricks to bring the facts into line with his declarations. Thus, he declares capitalism a "failure" caused by random causes. “Conjunctural circumstances,” writes Wallerstein, “led to the fact that Europe, having given birth to capitalism, sent itself and all of humanity into an irrational adventure that was not at all inevitable, just as a way out of the crisis is not obligatory.”

different from many contemporary authors, Wallerstein did not change his views under the influence of the fluctuating political and academic conjuncture. He consistently developed his theory over two decades of scientific work. In those years, the countries of Africa and Asia gained independence one after another, and their leaders and peoples were full of hope. The problem of underdevelopment was viewed as predominantly technical - it was believed that the whole point was in the insufficient development of industry and the lack of modern technologies. Colonialism was a political obstacle to development, but with independence, this problem was solved, and it remained only to speed up technological modernization.

Along with new technologies came new relationships, changing lifestyles, in other words, developing countries were waiting for a bright future, which was exemplified by the richest and most powerful industrial societies.

The development of events showed the complete failure of such hopes. Despite the construction of factories, social and cultural shifts, the gap between rich and poor countries has widened, and sometimes not only relatively, but absolutely. Attempts at industrialization in the developing countries mainly stimulated the growth of the economy in the more developed countries. With each new cycle of modernization, the relationship of backwardness and dependence was reproduced at a new level, but new problems and disproportions arose.

Researchers were less and less enthusiastic about modernization. Many turned to the experience of Latin America, which gained independence 150 years earlier than the colonial countries of Africa and Asia, but faced the same problems. At the same time, the radicalization of the Western intelligentsia was taking place. Even before the student performances of the second half of the 60s. an increasing number of people in academia began to turn to the Marxist tradition, not to "Soviet Marxism", but to "Western Marxism", represented by the works of Rosa Luxembourg, Antonio Gramsci, philosophers of the Frankfurt School. It was under such conditions that the school of world-system analysis began to form, led by Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin.

Since the mid-1970s, Wallerstein has been teaching and working both in the United States and in Europe, and from 1994 to 1998 he was President of the International Sociological Association. By this time, he already had an established reputation as a living classic. His works have been translated into many languages, including the most exotic ones, they are constantly quoted, dissertations are defended about him.

For a reader accustomed to the official language of Soviet official science, the terms used by the theorists of this school may recall the terminology used in those same years in our country. We also talked about the "world system of capitalism" and "dependence." Meanwhile, in reality, the school of world-system analysis took shape precisely in sharp controversy with the Soviet ideology of development. In the interpretation of Soviet social science, the "world capitalist system" was a purely political abstraction, and the development of each country was conceived as a linear process. All countries go through constant phases, it's just that some lag behind others. Backwardness can be overcome with the help of fraternal help Soviet people, and solve political problems by reorienting from the "imperialist camp" to the "socialist camp". In this regard, the Soviet ideology methodologically differed little from the Western theory of development.

This is what the proponents of world-system analysis pointed out. That is why they were stubbornly not published in the Soviet Union (with the exception of abstracts "for official use" published by the Institute of Scientific Information in the Social Sciences).

Meanwhile, Rosa Luxemburg was one of the first in economic science to write about capitalism as a world system in which the development of some countries occurs at the expense of others. Consequently, mechanical "progressive" development, repeating the stages of someone else's path, is impossible. Lenin did not accept Luxembourg's conclusions, just as he did not consider it necessary to take seriously the populist critique of capitalism. The ideas of Rosa Luxemburg were developed only in the works of Western researchers who considered the capitalist world economy as an organic whole. If Andre Gunder Frank focused on studying the experience of Latin America, and Samir Amin on the Arab countries, then Wallerstein set himself the task of studying the world system as such. A significant part of his work is devoted to economic history. Studying the processes that unfolded on both sides of the Atlantic after the discovery of America, Wallerstein came to the conclusion that already in the 16th century. an integral world-economy is being formed in this space. The transatlantic market preceded the formation of national markets. The American researcher comes to the conclusion that capitalism first took shape precisely as a world system and only then was developed in individual countries. These thoughts are formulated in the three-volume historical study "The Modern World System", as well as in the book "Capitalist World Economy".

In other words, it is impossible to understand state of the art capitalism and its future without considering its history. Like any system, capitalism had a beginning and therefore will have an end. Its laws are not "natural", because other societies existed before that lived according to other laws, but in the same way they are not "unnatural" or contrary to human nature, because they worked safely for five hundred years.

The problem is not in the moral virtues or shortcomings of capitalism, not in the industriousness or laziness of individual peoples, but in the historical boundaries that exist for the development of any system. In this regard, according to Wallerstein, it is the global expansion of capitalism, the integration of the whole world into one world economy, that is a harbinger of shocks: the possibilities of external, extensive expansion have been exhausted. Almost all known sources of growth have already been mobilized. Big changes are coming. Throughout its existence, the school of world-systems analysis has constantly faced criticism, both from the “right” (from liberal economists) and from the “left” from representatives of “orthodox” Marxism. Yet the most serious critiques of Wallerstein's work can be found among authors heavily influenced by him. This criticism has mainly centered around two issues. The first is how "capitalist" the capitalist world-economy is. Neither Wallerstein nor his critics deny that this system contains in a subordinate form numerous elements that are actually inherited from the past and live according to a different logic. Traditional Marxism saw in them only "survivals" that hindered development. In the same way, modern liberalism in Russia constantly struggles with the remnants of Soviet communism, without questioning how much these “remnants” themselves are a necessary and inevitable element of post-Soviet capitalism. At the same time, the nature of these non-capitalist structures and relationships has never been the subject of specific analysis for Wallerstein. From his point of view, as soon as the system as a whole is capitalist, then everything included in it is also capitalism. On the contrary, a number of other authors who generally share the world-system approach, following Rosa Luxemburg, speak of the non-capitalist nature of these structures (whether it be a post-Soviet “city-forming” enterprise or a Latin American latifundia).

The second problem pointed out by critics is that the world-system approach primarily focuses on exchange processes and interstate relations in the global economy, while capitalism is primarily a system of production relations. It is easy to see that both of these questions are interrelated.

It seems that in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries, capitalism both destroys pre-capitalist structures and relies on them. Isn't this the explanation for P. Struve's famous observation that the farther to the East, the worse the bourgeoisie? Or collapse Russian Empire where urban industrial capital collapsed along with landlordism? Or the notorious "inconsistency" of contemporary Russian reforms? But if there are still pre-capitalist elements in the capitalist world-system, doesn't this mean that along with them, post-capitalist structures, elements of an as yet unknown future have taken shape and already exist?

It is quite obvious that anyone who undertakes to seriously analyze global world processes is faced with questions so multifaceted that unambiguous answers become simply impossible.

Meanwhile, the enormous attractive force of Wallerstein's work is also connected with the fact that his conclusions, despite some complexity of the academic language, are made extremely concretely and clearly. This always makes it possible to imagine very clearly the predictive possibilities of the theory. The author does not try to hide behind polysemantic formulas. Any inaccuracy in the forecast is immediately detected. But it is all the more striking that the last few years have shown with the utmost clarity the enormous possibilities of the theory, its prognostic potential.

Positive conclusions to be drawn from the forecast are a special issue. Here, the American sociologist remains extremely cautious. More precisely, he remains precisely a scientist, without turning into a propagandist of any political idea. His political sympathies are obvious - he belongs to the left flank of public thought. And these Political Views closely related to the logic of his theory. But the requirements of scientific correctness for him remain extremely stringent. No matter how much one would like to point the way to a brighter future, one can only speak seriously about what is visible and predictable in the present.

The future remains dangerous, hazy and open. This future depends on us.

wallerstein capitalism society world system

Conclusion

In Russia, the publication of any book by Wallerstein can only be welcomed. World-system analysis is much more useful for sociology and history in Russia than theoretical surrogates like “ civilizational approach”, the concept of a “clash of civilizations” or a complete rejection of theory in historical research. In this situation of "theoretical confusion" (in the words of the famous Soviet historian A.Ya. Gurevich) of Russian sociology and history, Wallerstein is only useful.

The works of Wallerstein and other world-systemists are especially important in that they clearly and concisely - summarizing the works of other, alas, unknown in Russia theorists of dependent development and peripheral capitalism - showed the nature of the relationship between center and periphery that determines modern capitalism. Moreover, they have restored interest in a holistic socio-economic analysis of capitalism.

Wallerstein comes to conclusions very similar to the conclusions of K. Marx, but comes in his own way. We are dealing here not with a variant of Marxism, but with an independent confirmation of the correctness of certain provisions of K. Marx, which came from a concept that claimed to replace Marxism.

List of sources

1.Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. Per. from English. P.M. Kudyukin. Under the general editorship of Cand. watered, sciences B.Yu. Kagarlitsky - St. Petersburg: University Book Publishing House, 2001. -416 with.

2.Zavalko G.L. The emergence, development and state of the world-system approach // Social sciences and modernity. - 1998. - No. 2. - pp. 140-151

3.historical capitalism. capitalist civilization. - M.: Association of scientific publications KMK, 2008. - 176 p.

4.Skurlatov V.I. Trotsky, Wallerstein and Kagarlitsky [Electronic resource] // Philosophical and political diary. Information channel Subscribe. Ru

5.#"justify">. Zavalko G. WORLD CAPITALISM IN THE EYES OF I. WALLERSTAIN [Electronic resource] // Vostok Almanac No. 3 (27), March 2005 URL: #"justify">7. Wallerstein I. WORLD-SYSTEM ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION Per. from English N. Tyukina. Moscow Publishing House"TERRITORY OF THE FUTURE" 2006

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The variety of theories and views that exist today in international political science can ultimately be reduced to three paradigms:

realist (including classical realism and neorealism),

liberal (traditional idealism and neoliberalism),

· Neo-Marxist E. Bazhanov. Where is Humanity Going?: On Trends in International Relations in the 21st Century / E. Bazhanov, N. Bazhanova // Obozrevatel - Observer. - 2009. - No. 6. - C. 10..

Each of these paradigms proceeds from its own understanding of the nature and nature of international relations. These paradigms, of course, do not exhaust the content of the theory of international relations. The last two decades have been marked by intensive development within its framework of such areas as transnationalism and institutionalism, constructivism and postmodernism; international political economy and the sociology of international relations are becoming increasingly independent; Differences, and often quite significant ones, also exist within the framework of these paradigms themselves. At the same time, it is precisely these paradigms that remain the most common today, and the core discussion on the theory of international relations, which largely determines the path of its development, remains the discussion between neorealism and neoliberalism. This gives grounds not only to consider the above three paradigms as "basic" for international political science, but also to analyze on their basis the state of the latter itself. - S. 11..

In the 1950s-1960s. largely under the influence of the widespread disillusionment in the Western countries in the experience of "real socialism", Marxism takes the form of neo-Marxism. Neo-Marxism is based on the conviction that, as world capitalism develops, the interests of the rich and poor countries of the "North" and "South" are progressively demarcated.

One of the leading representatives of modern leftist social thought is Immanuel Wallerstein, a well-known contemporary American sociologist, macroeconomist and geopolitician. He was born in New York in 1930. After graduating from Columbia University, at the first stage of his scientific activity(1955-1970) researched African societies. Since 1976 Wallerstein has been professor of sociology at the State University of New York and director of the Center for the Study of Economics, Historical Systems and Civilizations. F. Brodel Mukhaev R.T. Geopolitics. - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2007. - S. 249 ..

The main work of I. Wallerstein is "The Modern World-System" Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world / Translated from English. P.M. Kudyukin under the general editorship. B.Yu. Kagarlitsky. - SPb.: Universitetskaya kniga, 2001. - 416 pp.. A total of three volumes of this grandiose work were published, for the first volume of which in 1975 I. Wallerstein was awarded the Sorokin Prize of the American Sociological Association Zavalko G. World capitalism through the eyes of I. Wallerstein / / Almanac East. - 2005. - No. 3. - S. 22 ..

His main contribution to the development of the social sciences is the development of an original theory of world systems, which is geopolitical in nature. From a methodological point of view, Wallerstein begins his analysis with the global economic system, or, as he calls it, the world-system. It should be noted that the world-system theory developed by Wallerstein is based on the principles of complex historical analysis proposed by the French historian Fernand Braudel. It synthesizes sociological, historical and economic approaches to social evolution. For the first time, the term “world-economy” (l "economie-monde) was used by F. Braudel (F. Braudel. Material civilization, economics and capitalism in the XV-XVIII centuries. T.1. Structures of everyday life. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - P. 42), but the holistic concept of world-system analysis was developed not by him, but by I. Wallerstein ..

According to I. Wallerstein, the world-system can be of three types.

1. World-empire, consisting of several local cultures, annexed by conquest. For example, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Russia era of serfdom.

2. World-economy, which is composed of independent nation-states. The only historical example here is Europe from modern times to the present day, which has grown from a continental to a world-wide capitalist world-economy, including existing and existing socialist countries.

3. World-socialism, which, according to I. Wallerstein, is a hypothetical system that has never been implemented anywhere Romanovsky N.V. Sociology and sociologists in the face of global cataclysms (on the controversy between M. Archer and I. Wallerstein) (PDF) // Sociological Studies. - 1998. - No. 4. - S. 56 ..

The world-economy has a three-level structure. At its center, or core, there are highly developed states that dominate economic relations, extract additional profits from the global division of labor, determine world politics (in the modern world, these are highly developed countries). The periphery of the world-economy is made up of countries that supply raw materials to the core countries and are therefore economically and politically dependent on the latter. Periphery countries are controlled by weak corrupt governments (these are underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America) Wallerstein I. Geopolitical divisions in the XXI century // Economic strategies. - 2006. - No. 5-6. - P. 14. Semi-peripheral countries of the world-economy (states of Central and Eastern Europe, rapidly developing countries South-East Asia) occupy an intermediate position between the states of the core and the periphery. They produce less technologically advanced products and are dependent on the high technologies of the core countries, but use their advantages in trade with the periphery countries. Ibid. - S. 15 ..

The world-economy has gone through three stages in its development.

The first stage (XV-XVI centuries) is the stage of the birth of the world-economy from the feudal economic-political system (according to the typology of I. Wallerstein from the world-empire). At this stage, as a result of geographical discoveries and colonial expansion, the countries that make up the core of the system (Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain), and some others that conquered colonies, gained access to ultra-cheap labor and natural resources peripheral areas, which were thus attached to the world-economy. This ensured the initial accumulation of capital and the development of the world-economy at the second stage (XVI - the first third of the XVII century). But each part of this system has its own character of labor. In the core countries, there is a free labor market, and control over the quality of labor is of an economic nature. This leads to continuous improvement of the qualifications of employees and the quality of goods. In the semi-peripheral zone, control over the labor force is non-economic, coercive, the workers themselves are less skilled, and labor exists in such forms as corvée and sharecropping. Slave labor prevails in peripheral zones I. Wallerstein. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. - S. 178 ..

At the third stage of development of the world-economy, the role of political processes increases.

First, the role of states in regulating the economy is increasing.

Secondly, a developing economy allows strengthening state structures by training a large number of officials and, thirdly, to form permanent national armies, which, fourthly, serve to strengthen and internal stability of states. The strengthening of states and the strengthening of their role in the economy causes an increase in competition between them in the international arena, the ascent of some and the descent of others Ibid. - S. 221 ..

The modern world-economy has acquired a worldwide character, including all continents, seas and oceans within its borders. Like other world-systems, it functions cyclically on the basis of extra-long cycles, which include war and struggle for hegemony Ibid. - S. 224 ..

This, in brief, is the methodology of I. Wallerstein. In the study of the problems of the capitalist world-economy, it is very fruitful. An undoubted achievement is the study of horizontal connections within the world-economy. But the undoubted problem for the world-systems approach was the relationship between the world-economy and individual societies.

The existence of individual societies (Wallerstein calls them nation-states) is considered secondary, derived from the existence of social systems. According to Wallerstein, it is not socio-historical organisms that unite into systems, but, on the contrary, systems give rise to socio-historical organisms. Undoubtedly, this view is connected with the fact that the main subject of Wallerstein's research is modernity. It is modernity that is characterized by a very strong reverse influence of the interstate system on its constituent national states; Wallerstein brought this situation to the past, when such influence was much weaker.

Although Wallerstein identifies different types of social systems and different ways production, he lacks a stage typology - he does not consider, as one might assume, that humanity is developing from the stage of mini-systems to the stage of world-systems. Wallerstein denies the concepts of "progress" and "development", seeing in history only changes that have no direction Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. - S. 234 ..

The incorporation of new zones into the world-economy, Wallerstein writes in Volume III of The Modern World-System, was accompanied by the transformation of neighboring zones into external arenas. "From the point of view of the capitalist world-economy, the outer arena was a zone whose products the capitalist world-economy needed, but which resisted (perhaps only culturally) the importation of manufactured goods in return and supported its advantages politically enough" Ibid. - P. 241 .. When India was included, China acquired the quality of an external arena, when some parts of the Ottoman Empire were included - the Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt, then others - the "Blessed Crescent", the Maghreb - became external arenas. The same happened with Central Asia after the inclusion of Russia, with the West African savanna - after the inclusion of the West African coast. But in the end, the resistance of all external arenas was broken and they were included in the capitalist world-economy Ibid. - S. 242 ..

The division of the world-economy into a core and a periphery disappears not as a result of the inclusion of new countries in the core, but as a result of the gradual elimination of capitalism. “The weakness of capitalism lies in the embodiment of its own goals, in its complete self-realization. As its system as a whole becomes more and more commodified, its capacity for unequal distribution and, consequently, for the accumulation of capital decreases, since the distinction between the center and However, commodification does not mean the automatic death of capitalism: left to their own devices, the forces ruling in the CME will try to slow down the pace of development, and programs of national development under these conditions can become a means of such a deceleration that saves capitalism "Ibid. - S. 245 ..

Thus, I. Wallerstein is a supporter of the neo-Marxist approach to the analysis of the capitalist economy. For him, the market is a symbol of rationalism, a developed form of control over the measure of labor and consumption, not identified with capitalism. The modern world-economy, according to Wallerstein, exists thanks to market, not capitalist relations. It is the developed markets that are the structures that support the stability of the global world-economy. Wallerstein comes to conclusions very similar to the conclusions of K. Marx, but comes in his own way. We are dealing here not with a variant of Marxism, but with an independent confirmation of the correctness of certain provisions of K. Marx, which came from a concept that claimed to replace Marxism.

Immanuel Wallerstein is a famous modern American sociologist, macroeconomist and geopolitician, born in New York in 1930. After graduating from Columbia University, at the first stage of his scientific activity (1955-1970) he was engaged in the study of African societies.

Since 1976 - professor of sociology at the State University of New York and director of the Center for the Study of Economics, Historical Systems and Civilizations. F. Braudel.

The main work of I. Wallerstein is "The Modern World-System". A total of three volumes1 of this grandiose work were published, for the first volume of which, in 1975, I. Wallerstein was awarded the Sorokin Prize of the American Sociological Association.

His main contribution to the development of the social sciences is the development of an original theory of world systems, which is geopolitical in nature. In his methodological concept, Wallerstein is extremely deductive. He begins his analysis with the global economic system, or, as he calls it, the world-system. According to I. Wallerstein, it can be of three types.

1. World-empire, consisting of several local cultures, annexed by conquest. For example, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Russia of the era of serfdom.

2. World-economy, which is composed of independent nation-states. The only historical example here is Europe from modern times to the present day, which has grown from a continental to a world-wide capitalist world-economy, including existing and existing socialist countries.

3. World-socialism, which, according to I. Wallerstein, is a hypothetical system that has never been implemented anywhere. The world-economy has a three-level structure. at its center, or

At the core, there are highly developed states that dominate economic relations, derive additional profits from the global division of labor, determine world politics (in the modern world, these are highly developed countries). The periphery of the world-economy is made up of countries that supply raw materials to the core countries and are therefore economically and politically dependent on the latter. Periphery countries are governed by weak corrupt governments (these are the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America). The semi-peripheral countries of the world economy (the states of Central and Eastern Europe, the rapidly developing countries of Southeast Asia) occupy an intermediate position between the states of the core and the periphery. They produce less technological products and are dependent on the high technologies of the core countries, but use their advantages when trading with the countries of the periphery.

The world-economy has gone through three stages in its development. The first stage (XV-XVI centuries) is the stage of the birth of the world-economy from the feudal economic-political system (according to the typology of I. Wallerstein - from the world-empire). At this stage, as a result of geographical discoveries and colonial expansion, the countries that make up the core of the system (Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain), and some others that conquered colonies, gained access to ultra-cheap labor and natural resources of peripheral areas, which were thus attached to world-economy. This ensured the initial accumulation of capital and the development of the world-economy at the second stage (XVI - the first third of the XVII century). But each part of this system has its own character of labor. In the core countries, there is a free labor market, and control over the quality of labor is of an economic nature. This leads to continuous improvement of the qualifications of employees and the quality of goods. In the semi-peripheral zone, control over the labor force is non-economic, coercive, the workers themselves are less skilled, and labor exists in such forms as corvée and sharecropping. Slave labor predominates in the peripheral zones.

At the third stage of development of the world-economy, the role of political processes increases. First, the role of states in regulating the economy is increasing. Secondly, a developing economy makes it possible to strengthen state structures by training a large number of officials and, thirdly, to form permanent national armies, which, fourthly, serve to strengthen and internal stability of states. The strengthening of states and the strengthening of their role in the economy causes an increase in competition between them in the international arena, the ascent of some and the descent of others.

The modern world-economy has acquired a worldwide character, including all continents, seas and oceans within its borders. Like other world-systems, it functions cyclically on the basis of super-long cycles, which W. Cameron called "logistic" and which include war and the struggle for hegemony.

I. Wallerstein is a supporter of the neo-Marxist approach to the analysis of the capitalist economy. For him, the market is a symbol of rationalism, a developed form of control over the measure of labor and consumption, not identified with capitalism. The modern world-economy, according to Wallerstein, exists thanks to market, not capitalist relations. It is the developed markets that are the structures that support the stability of the global world-economy.